MEMORANDUM

FOR

DIRECTOR ROLANDO M BANDILLA JR., CESO IV

Chief, BFP

SUBJECT

REQUEST FOR LEGAL OPINION, Re: Temporary Revocation

of Optional Retirement of CINSP JOSE T ZEPEDA JR.

DATE

28 July 2011

REFERENCES:
1. Memorandum from SUPT EDDIE SILVANO C CUARTEL, Chief, IAS dated 14 June
2011;
2. Letter from Mr. Dexter M. Chavez, Site Acquisition Officer, Aquarius Telecom
Services dated 28 March 2011.
BRIEF BACKGROUND:
In a letter dated March 28, 2011, Mr. Dexter M. Chavez, Site Acquisition
Officer of Aquarius Telecom Services Corp., the company commissioned by Globe
Telecom to identify, negotiate and construct additional state of the art
telecommunication services nationwide, is formally proposing the installation and
operation of Globe Telecom system antenna facility on our newly constructed BFP
National Headquarters Building located at Agham Road, Quezon City. In this regard
they are requesting for the conduct of joint technical survey and analysis to
determine the best possible location of the communication facility within the
aforestated premises.
Thus, on 03 May 2011, SSUPT Leonides P Perez, Director for Logistic
requested for a legal opinion on the proposal offered by Aquarius Telecom Services
Corp.

LEGAL OPINION:
This office is of the opinion that the Joint survey and analysis may be allowed
for purposes of determining the best possible location of the telecommunication

facility to be installed by Globe Telecom thru Aquarius Telecom Service Corp.

However, said survey should be properly coordinated with and in the presence of
representative of the BFP and the contractor of subject building. Moreover, it is
respectfully suggested that the results of this survey and analysis together with the
formal proposal of Aquarius Telecom Services Corp. for lease, once the location is
specifically determined, should be submitted to this office for further determination
of its legality.
Therefore, premises considered, it is the humble opinion of this office that the
request of Aquarius Telecom Services Corp. for the conduct of joint survey and
analysis to our new building may BE ALLOWED.
Respectfully submitted.

JERRY
D
CANDIDO
SUPT
(DSC)
BFP
Chief, Legal Affairs Service
BFP National Headquarters
Resignation should not be used neither as an escape nor as an easy way out to
evade an administrative liability or an administrative sanction (Cajot vs. Cledera
A.M. No. P-98-1262 February 12, 1998
If at the time a public official resigns or retires he is facing an administrative
investigation, such resignation or retirement will not cause the dismissal of the
administrative or criminal proceedings. The rationale is that the public official
cannot use his resignation or retirement to avoid prosecution (Estrada vs. Desierto
GR Nos 146710-15 March 2, 2001, 353 SCRA 452
In any eventuality, a resignation is not complete until accepted by the proper
authority
Section 12, Republic Act No. 3019
Termination of office- No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire pending
an investigation, criminal or administrative, or pending a prosecution against him,
for any offense under this Act OR under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on
Bribery
The rationale for the non-allowance of an application for Optional retirement is the
prevention of evasion of possible administrative sanction such as suspension or
dismissal in case of guilt, in addition to the possible forfeiture and answerability for
any financial accountability of his retirement pay and benefits. (FUNA page 264)

In consonance with the Supreme Courts exclusive administrative jurisdiction, there

have been instances when judges and court personnel with pending administrative
cases have been allowed to optionally retire. But in those cases, the payment of
retirement benefits are withheld (Re: Report of Acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo F.
Herico, AM No 00-3-108-RTC, January 28, 2005
In administrative cases against judges where resignation or retirement has already
been accepted, the pursuit of the administrative charge was held to be dependent
on the contextual circumstance of each case. There would therefore, be instances
when the resignation or retirement would not render an administrative case moot
and academic.
In People vs. Valenzuela, where the respondent judges resignation was already
accepted by the President of the Philippines thus preventing the Supreme Court
from imposing the penalty of dismissal after having been found guilty of
misconduct, the Court nevertheless imposed the penalty of forfeiture of all leave
and retirement benefits with prejudice to reinstatement in any position in
government.